tantalum wrote:Oh and hockeys future while having nice message boards (some not all) is notoriously out to lunch on prospect ratings because every writer rates things differently and in in general those writers aren't any different than the people on this board.... fans who fancy themselves experts.

Bingo.

It doesn't render their opinions meaningless, but HF is not exactly the most reliable source for prospect ratings and projections.

Anyway, if you're a hockey fan who follows the rest of the league closely, and does research, then you a foundation which allows you to form opinions. The thing about research however, is that the most convenient and easy to find information, such as 2 sentence evaluations on the Hockey News, and prospect ratings on HF, often lacks substance and is short on necessary context. To delve deeper, you have to read more, follow more reputable sources and evaluate each prospect based on the type of player you're expecting him to be.

Now, if someone shares an opinion, they better be prepared to back it up and defend it. If you want to attack someone's opinion, then do it clearly and prove your critique.

And yes, once a player no longer qualifies as a rookie, then he's no longer a prospect, but a young, developing NHL player.

Pretty simple.

There's lots of self proclaimed experts. That's why it's good to reference third parties, even though they're not perfect either.

If you going to use a prospect definition, it better include the player you're calling a prospect, & be from a third party (not one you just made up).

In this case, a prospect (Erixon) who's played in the NHL. A guy 21 days younger than Kassian. My basis for comparison was clear.

If you want to change the comparison basis later on, because you don't like the outcome, then feel free to start your own.

clem wrote:There's lots of self proclaimed experts. That's why it's good to reference third parties, even though they're not perfect either.

Not sure why you're taking exception since my initial post wasn't a reply to you, nor was it solely intended to critique your entire argument. If it were, I would have been far more explicit.

Also, I didn't say it's wrong to reference third parties. I said you can't put an incredible amount of weight into what they have to say when you're trying to back your argument with a source.

clem wrote:If you going to use a prospect definition, it better include the player you're calling a prospect, & be from a third party (not one you just made up).

What are you trying to say here?

I have to name a player to state a definition for what is generally thought to be the requirements to consider a player a prospect or an NHL player?

Not sure why that is necessary, but here you go:

Someone like Kassian is no longer considered a prospect, because he's played enough games to no longer qualify as a rookie. Barring unforeseen circumstances, Kassian is penned in as a Canucks regular next season.

Nicklas Jensen is still a prospect, because he'd be considered a rookie if he were to suit up in an NHL game next season. Barring a spectacular camp, Jensen will be playing in Sweden next season.

clem wrote:In this case, a prospect (Erixon) who's played in the NHL. A guy 21 days younger than Kassian. My basis for comparison was clear.

If you want to change the comparison basis later on, because you don't like the outcome, then feel free to start your own.

I wasn't referring to any specific comparison, but saying that a player like Kassian is no longer a prospect, therefore he shouldn't be ranked relative to Erixon if they were in the same organization, because Erixon is still a prospect who has yet to earn a full-time job in the NHL.

In this case, age is irrelevant when saying one is a prospect, and another isn't.

Jeff Skinner is 20, a full year younger than Erixon. Here age is also irrelevant.

Maybe it's just a technical difference in the end, but the point is, a player like Kassian is no longer a prospect, while a player like Erixon is. Age doesn't matter, NHL experience does.

Typically, when it comes to the NHL, a prospect is a player who has yet to make an NHL club. In this case Kassian has, while Erixon hasn't. Erixon may very well make the Blue Jackets and flourish, but to this point he's a rookie who has yet to earn a spot on a team.

clem wrote:There's lots of self proclaimed experts. That's why it's good to reference third parties, even though they're not perfect either.

Not sure why you're taking exception since my initial post ....

You seem to be confusing a statement of fact for exception.

coco_canuck wrote:

clem wrote:If you going to use a prospect definition, it better include the player you're calling a prospect, & be from a third party (not one you just made up).

What are you trying to say here? ....

More confusion.

coco_canuck wrote:

clem wrote:In this case, a prospect (Erixon) who's played in the NHL. A guy 21 days younger than Kassian. My basis for comparison was clear.

If you want to change the comparison basis later on, because you don't like the outcome, then feel free to start your own.

I wasn't referring to any specific comparison, but saying that a player like Kassian is no longer a prospect, therefore he shouldn't be ranked relative to Erixon if they were in the same organization, because Erixon is still a prospect who has yet to earn a full-time job in the NHL.

In this case, age is irrelevant ....

Apparently, my basis for comparison was clearer for some than others. The HF criteria (previously referenced) includes both Erixon & Kassian as prospects. If you re-frame the comparison, using different comparison criteria, you have a different discussion. Have at 'er.

clem wrote:You seem to be confusing a statement of fact for exception.

No, your so called statement of fact's tone is perceptible, as was your tirade earlier.

clem wrote:Apparently, my basis for comparison was clearer for some than others. The HF criteria (previously referenced) includes both Erixon & Kassian as prospects. If you re-frame the comparison, using different comparison criteria, you have a different discussion. Have at 'er.

What part of "I wasn't directly responding to your argument" don't you understand?

Like I said, I wasn't looking to tear down your argument, so I'm not sure why you keep attributing my thoughts directly against yours.

I was giving my basis for what I consider to be a prospect and who is an NHL player.

I'm not a big fan of HF because they aren't very reliable, nor do they update each team's page, and prospects, ranking etc. in a timely and consistent manner.

But continue taking exception and arguing against a ghost, at least you sound passionate...that might count for something.

clem wrote:It seems that you don’t accept the existence of “lots of self proclaimed experts” as fact.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

"Self proclaimed" means someone has outwardly proclaimed that they are an expert. Unless someone has delusions of grandeur, I don't recall anyone proclaiming him or herself as an expert.

You may think some opinions are arrogant, but that's neither here nor there in regards to your so called "self proclaimed experts," so I really don't know what FACT you're talking about here.

This is a largely non-affiliated message board where people post their opinions.

Opinions can come in many forms, some are good, some are shit.

When you have an opinion, you back it up against criticism.

If you disagree with an opinion, argue why you don't agree.

It has nothing to do anyone proclaiming any expertise.

clem wrote:That’s odd. I don’t see that quote in your earlier posts, but do see that you quote me when criticising my references.

The topic of HF came up, which was a part of your argument, and I shared my thoughts on HF. Obviously, my opinions goes against part of your argument, but I wasn't debating Erixon and Kassian.

In regards to defending and attacking arguments, if you're going to cite sources to boost your argument, then just like any other type of reasonable citation style, select relevant and vetted sources that cannot easily be criticized.

As you encounter higher forms of argumentation, you have to expect that your entire argument is open to scrutiny, i.e. the type of source you're citing.

clem wrote:It seems that you don’t accept the existence of “lots of self proclaimed experts” as fact.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

"Self proclaimed" means someone has outwardly proclaimed that they are an expert. Unless someone has delusions of grandeur, I don't recall anyone proclaiming him or herself as an expert.

You may think some opinions are arrogant, but that's neither here nor there in regards to your so called "self proclaimed experts," so I really don't know what FACT you're talking about here.

This is a largely non-affiliated message board where people post their opinions.

Opinions can come in many forms, some are good, some are shit.

Some sources produce in great quantity as well.

coco_canuck wrote:When you have an opinion, you back it up against criticism.

If you disagree with an opinion, argue why you don't agree.

It has nothing to do anyone proclaiming any expertise.

clem wrote:That’s odd. I don’t see that quote in your earlier posts, but do see that you quote me when criticising my references.

The topic of HF came up, which was a part of your argument, and I shared my thoughts on HF. Obviously, my opinions goes against part of your argument, but I wasn't debating Erixon and Kassian.

In regards to defending and attacking arguments, if you're going to cite sources to boost your argument, then just like any other type of reasonable citation style, select relevant and vetted sources that cannot easily be criticized.

As you encounter higher forms of argumentation, you have to expect that your entire argument is open to scrutiny, i.e. the type of source you're citing.

Considering that the above questions the quality of HF, does anyone know a reputable source for guaging young players' potential?

Specifically on the trade, while it seems like usually the team getting the best player wins the trade, I think Columbus got pretty good quantity and quality for the return. As someone else in the thread stated, would have liked to see Dubinsky as a Canuck. Never puts up as many points as I expect (now that expectation is diminishing) but does have good heart, which is one of the attributes the current team seems to be lacking.

Gino's Knuckle wrote:Considering that the above questions the quality of HF, does anyone know a reputable source for guaging young players' potential?

Specifically on the trade, while it seems like usually the team getting the best player wins the trade, I think Columbus got pretty good quantity and quality for the return. As someone else in the thread stated, would have liked to see Dubinsky as a Canuck. Never puts up as many points as I expect (now that expectation is diminishing) but does have good heart, which is one of the attributes the current team seems to be lacking.

If you want a rough comparison of players (young or old) who played in the NHL last season, hockey prospectus provides a simple ranking of 983 players.

All ranking systems will be subject to criticism, but independent third parties provide a relatively unbiased point of reference.